The scholar-led.network (German) wants to change this and advocates fair, diverse and public spirit-oriented publishing. In doing so, it is committed to and involved in Open Access journals, book publishers and blogs which are run collaboratively by scientists in order to give the diverse community of publication initiatives a voice. The network aims to be an advocate for independent, non-profit-oriented Open Access and to ensure sustainability in a field which is often characterised by project-based funding. In the interview, network co-founders Juliane Finger and Marcel Wrzesinski introduce the initiative and discuss its challenges, goals and initial plans.
“In this episode we chat with Kathleen Shearer, Executive director of Confederation of Open Access Repositories, hearing her views on repositories in open research.”
At DARIAH, recognizing and even celebrating the complexities of humanistic and artistic research practices has always been a heart of our interest. This includes connecting DARIAHns with fair Open Access players and showcasing, discussing innovations that are pushing the boundaries of what we can conceive as the scholarly monograph in the 21st century. The conversation below with Janneke Adema, author of Living Books: Experiments in the Posthumanities had started out as a twitter exchange that later we continued in the margins of the book. In this post, you can read its remediated, recontextualized version where the questions are not directly anchored in the introduction chapter of the book. We discuss how blogging helped her to rethink book publishing (of her own and of others); the fetishization of print books and how it relates to Zoom background, dynamic forms of publishing and many more. Enjoy!
“Twenty years ago the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) released a statement of strategy and commitment to advocating for and realizing open access infrastructures across diverse institutions around the world. In this episode we have the opportunity to hear from four individuals who have been part of that journey and work since the beginning: Melissa Hagemann, Senior Program Officer at Open Society Foundations; Peter Suber from Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication; Iryna Kuchma, Manager of the Open Access Program at Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL) and Dominique Babini, Open Science Advisor at CLACSO, the Latin American Council of Social Sciences. …”
“To celebrate international Open Access week 2021, UTS Library is taking a closer look at how the UTS community can prioritise unlocking knowledge through open education and open research to support social equity and inclusion.
UTS Library’s Scholarly Communications Manager, Scott Abbott, sat down with leading voice in the open access movement Peter Suber, who is currently the Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and Director of the Harvard Open Access Project.
In this interview, Peter sets the scene for global scholarly communications, dissects how Australia sits within the context of open infrastructure and explores some of the current risks and opportunities of the open access movement….”
“We publicize key results of recent research articles, with visual content easy to understand rapidly. Save time in understanding science…
– We are a start-up that is being supported and developed at Harvard Innovation labs since 2020?
– We provide [open access] videos of less than 8 minutes that emphasize key elements of recently published research articles?
– We are innovating the way to receive recent research findings in a concise and fast manner?
– Our visual content includes interviews of authors who summarize their findings and give their point of view regarding their study?
– Our videos feature the authors name, their affiliated institution, and their journal ”
“[Q] What is your opinion on Open Access versus the traditional subscription publishing model?
[A] I start with the observation that there was not one traditional publishing model. On the one hand, there are commercial publishers such as Elsevier but also Nature, Cell Press, etc., who published a whole range of journals from the very prestigious to the not so prominent and made their money by charging often high fees to libraries and in some cases individual subscribers. These attracted increasing disapproval because they were publishing work that had been funded by public bodies and/or charities who were interested in discoveries and not publications/publishers’ profits. On the other hand, there are journals published by learned societies such as the Biochemical Journal (UK) and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Here, the income, again mainly from libraries, was used to support the scholarly activities of the sponsoring societies, but even here there was variation; some journals such as the Journal of Biological Chemistry charged their authors’ page charges, whereas others, such as the Biochemical Journal, did not. In general, those that did not impose page charges charged higher prices to libraries. A third model was that of FEBS who have always worked with commercial publishers to generate revenue for FEBS from their journals. All these journals made additional money from the sale of reprints. Most of the content of these journals was available only to subscribers, of which the majority were affiliated to institutional or company subscribers. The idea that all publicly funded knowledge should be available to all was given impetus by the move to online publication when it became feasible for an individual, almost anywhere in the world and without institutional or company connection, to gain access to all publications provided there was no paywall. I have always questioned how many such individuals exist, but to make publications truly open access, the costs of publication have had to shift to investigators and their institutions. At my own institution, the large sums allocated for this purpose were exhausted before the financial year was complete, thus leading to delays in publication. It is now understood that spending large sums of money this way instead of on research is unsustainable. The dream, of course, is deposition of papers on the internet at close to zero cost, but then who would organize review and proper presentation? Some will argue that we don’t need review—rubbish will sink ignored—but then how would we know about papers hosted only on an institutional website? Overall, I am inclined to think the traditional model had much to recommend it and it is not clear to me how the scientific community can stop profit-driven commercial publishing, an original aim of open access, other than boycotting of certain journals….”
“My view is that we are in the stone age. If you look at AI and semantic search — it hasn’t taken off. Folks are still using a standard boolean search. AI can be used in so many different ways. Blockchain is very early days and has so much great promise. Unfortunately, it is equated to cryptocurrency, but it’s not about that at all.
This is my caution to publishers. You don’t want to be Telerate. Telerate had 100% of the market before Bloomberg. Bloomberg had better analytics, better customer service, better user experience. Unfortunately, the Bancroft family took a multibillion-dollar bath with Telerate. A lot of publishers are very hesitant to try Blockchain. Someone will create a better mousetrap that will make publishing so much more effective than it currently is.
I remember speaking with a librarian in 1999, as we were rolling out ScienceDirect, who insisted that the internet would go away and print would resurge. We’ve had so many panels about whether ebooks will ever come to fruition. In this industry, we make the error of ignoring so much new technology — it’s great to challenge it for efficacy — that debate is always worthwhile, but any new technology shouldn’t be dismissed outright….”
“Clearly the biggest shift is the move in scientific publishing from the traditional subscription journal to one form or other of open-access publication. There will be debate as to which of the various open-science initiatives is the best, the worst, the most feasible, and the most affordable. What won’t be debated is whether the world needs open access at all….
Personally, I was less convinced—as my 2004 appearance at the United Kingdom Select Committee on Science and Technology suggested—but we all had to pay lip service to this “free” ideology. It was said that such an open-access revolution would aid the dissemination of scientific research for the benefit of humanity. Who could argue with that? Indeed, the response of the open access community to the desperate need for reliable information about COVID-19 has been stupendous.
And yet, and yet….”
“SBMT: Why are the “diamond/platinum” journals the least valued by editorial metrics and funding agencies?
Dr. TR Shankar Raman: I have no idea why this should be so. It feels like the academic community has just painted itself into a corner. There are lots of excellent diamond open access journals. The journals published by Indian Academy of Sciences are a good example (although they have a weird co-publishing arrangement with Springer Nature, the journals and papers can be freely accessed via the Academy website and there are no charges for authors to publish either). Of course, the number of papers that a diamond open access journal may be able to publish may be lower and many are in niche areas of science rather than multi-disciplinary in scope and hence their reach may be lower than what big-budget commercial journals can achieve with their resources. But this only means that diamond open access journals should be supported more to achieve better reach, not shift to commercial publishers. All public and philanthropic funding for science has everything to gain by supporting and mandating publication in diamond open access journals….
SBMT: How to design a policy in defense of Southern science through the promotion of “diamond/platinum” journals?
Dr. TR Shankar Raman: As individuals, we can each take a stand, as I have tried to in my post—that I will not review for or publish in commercial journals, but will especially do so for diamond open access journals. Particularly, senior scientists and leaders in their fields must set an example by publishing, reviewing for, or accepting to be on the boards of diamond open access journals. But this will not go far unless we also collectively work to change overall policy. As a community, we must petition our academies, funders, and science administrators to change policies to give greater recognition to papers published in diamond open access journals. This can trigger a big change: especially if it begins to count towards jobs and promotions in academia. Impact factor should be trashed as outdated, harmful, and retrogressive. Recipients of public funds should be mandated to publish in diamond open access journals published by nonprofit scientific societies as this is the most cost-effective way to spend the available (limited) funds to achieve publication that is freely, openly, and widely accessible, while supporting and advancing science. Other initiatives such as Gold Open Access, self-archiving of submitted final versions, or pay-to-publish APC models are all half measures or discriminate and exclude large numbers of scientists around the world, who cannot pay the large fees involved. Policies should support membership fee support for scholars and new and tenured faculty to join learned academic societies that publish diamond open access journals so that the funds are kept within the community and to advance science rather than feed the profits of commercial companies….”
“We chat with Ashley Farley about her background as an academic librarian, the underrecognised importance of copyright in academic publishing, and her work as a Program Officer at the Gates Foundation
An academic librarian’s perpsective on the importance of open reseasch
The importance of copyright in research and what it means signing over your copyright
The PDF crisis!
What does a program officer at a grant funding organsiation do?
Why should funding organisations care about open science?
Why open access is more than just about acacemic papers, but extends to posters and presentations
Why can’t academics collectively decide to push back against the big publishers?
The difference between private funders vs. goverment funding agencies…”
“In this episode, we chat with Executive Director of Project Gutenberg, Dr. Greg Newby. We talk about the role of open access to knowledge and how copyright has played into a complicated mess that inhibits artistic development.”
“Open access publishing has attracted huge momentum in recent years. Researchers in humanities now have more opportunities to publish as open access, not to mention for colleagues from science and medicine areas. Quite often authors will have to pay a big sum in order to publish open access and I know this may actually pose serious challenges to some of our authors as fundings in humanities studies are still not such common. I am very happy to see that Shanghai Jiao Tong University will fully sponsor the publication of this journal and thus authors do not need to pay for publication. I trust this sponsorship will provide more opportunities for researchers from those under-represented regions and disciplines. Meanwhile, open access will surely improve the visibility of our contributor’s works, expanding naturally their influence in the long run….”
“What is Open Access Publishing and why is it important? Listen in as Raj Balkaran interviews Dominik A. Haas on his Fair Open Access Publishing in South Asian Studies (FOASAS) initiative which maintains a list of relevant publishers, journals, book series and other publication media. The list is available here. If you know of any other FOA publishers, journals etc. with an emphasis on Indological / South Asia-related research, or have feedback about the list, feel free to contact Dominik directly at email@example.com …”
“We asked Dr. Daniel Simons, editor of AMPPS and Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to share his thoughts on the role of journals in advancing open sciences practices, his experience implementing AMPPS’ rigorous standards, and his advice for researchers and editors on advancing a vision of increasingly transparent research in academia….”